Making Staff Hiring More Meaningful

[QuikSand]

One of the subsidiary issues with the recent conversation about Accelerating Staff Hiring (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=63519) was many people's view that it's not so much the time spent on it that is so bothersome, it's that the process is so empty. I thought a separate thread might be useful to shake out possible ways for a MP league to add some spice to staff hiring.

CAVEAT - This isn't for everyone. It's intended for people who agree that this segment of a MP season is lousy, and would like to change it. Be forewarned.


So, given that we can't change the roles or the complexity of staff hiring in FOF, what could we actually do in a MP league to make this part of the game more interesting? (Related question... if it's too hard to "speed up" the three day process, is it possible to add something to it to at least make those three days seem like tiem better spent?)

I would suggest that the thing that's missing most of all is any sense that the game financials matter in any meaningful way. And if there's no real cost to spending more on staff, then why not do it?

I played in a MP league which used a staff salary cap, but eventually abandoned the idea. I suspect that staff caps are in place elsewhere in MP Leagues, many with success, I'd guess. That is one easy way to go.


But to me, that still remains too limiting. I want to feel a sense of strategy to be involved, and I'd like to have the same feeling of excitement when I'm chasing a free agent player that I really want to apply when I am after a staff member. How could we do that?

My thinking: Tie staff salaries into the player salary cap

It's the salary cap that really drives financial in this game, and we all know that. So, make the "cost" of doing business in staff one that translates to a limited ability to put players onto the field, via the salary cap.

For the moment, I'll leave silent the exact way to implement this. It would be nice if FOF were as flexible as other sims with its financial system, and would allow some manual activity of this sort, but this sort of thing would need to be done either (1) manually outside the game, or (2) inside the game by a league member who understands the game files and could execute the needed transactions. The latter is preferable, the former may be required. It may be that the burden of tracing this sort of information would prove too cumbersome for some leagues, and in this case maybe this idea is a complete non-starter. I accept that as a possible outcome, at least for some. Regardless, I'll carry on.


Here's how I'd propose it to work.

-League sets a "staff cap" as a certain % of its player salary cap for that year
-Team staff spending is a sum of a defined multiple of each of its staff salaries
-If spending exceeds the staff cap, then some multiple of the excess is considered 'dead cap space" for that team that year


So, what might the numbers look like?

I took a look at one SP league, to try to get a sense of this. (I don't think a MP league is ideal, if most teams are free-spending on staff without concern for salaries, like they should) What I found was:

Player salary cap: $136,600,000

Median scout: $710,000

Median Head coach: $6,850,000
Median Off Coord: $4,400,000
Median Def Coord: $3,070,000


I think the way to try to put the scout and coaching staff onto fair terms is to insert a multiplier to the scout, and leave the coaches as they are. You want the difference between great and lousy scouting to be material, and without amplifying its effect it won't happen -- I will insert my intuition here and set that multiple at a nice round 10. I'm sure a case could be made for a different figure.

So, in this league, a team with median costs at every staff position would have a "modified staff cost" of about $21 million. That's right around 15% of the salary cap.

From this, I would suggest that the way to implement the "staff cap" would be to basically carry dollar-for-dollar any overage over the limit against the player cap for that year. If you set your limit at 15% of the player cap, then anyone spending more than that limit in total will be playing with a reduced salary cap for that year.

Example:

In this league, the 15% staff cap comes to $20.49m.
I spend $900K on my scout.
I spend $8m on my HC, $5m on my OC, and $4m on my DC.
My staff cost = 9+8+5+4 = 26m.
I am penalized for my overage by applying $5.51m of "dead cap space" to my salary cap this year.
(Or alternatively, at certain point of the year, I am required to be at least $5.51m under the cap, or face some enforcement)


If you set the limit low enough, and the penalty strong enough, this could turn into a pretty viable trade-off between investment in the best staff versus the best players. While that might admittedly not be a fair representation of NFL football, if our interest is playability and challenge, that would give us, the owners, more things to decide on as a way to effect the sort of team focus we want. And if the three days of staff hiring really meant something meaningful to our teams... maybe we wouldn't mind spending three days on it, after all.

[Mike Lowe]

I was just heading to the forums here with a question about coach signing:

Is there any sort of cohesion in regards to your coaching staff? I'm happy with my staff, in my MP league universe, but what is stopping me from going out and trying to get the best guys available?

[QuikSand]

Is there any sort of cohesion in regards to your coaching staff? I'm happy with my staff, in my MP league universe, but what is stopping me from going out and trying to get the best guys available?

At one point there was a mention from the developer that both your coach's discipline rating and his time with the team mattered in curtailing penalties. (It turns out this wasn't working correctly, and has since been patched) So, there does seem to be some effect of longevity, but I don't think anyone knows or has been able to test how important it is.

[OldSchool]

It seems as though there's already a limiting factor in that if you're losing money you don't have much to spend on coaches. I know I've been burned and helped by this in MP, but never really noticed in SP. I'd rather see that effect buffed if a change is needed than tieing it to the salary cap, just for the sake of realism.

I'd like to see the staff hiring/firing system fleshed out a little more.
- adding incentive/disincentives it so that coach changing patterns mirror RL a bit more...maybe things along the lines of after a couple of bad seasons a coach starts dropping in effectiveness as he "loses" the team, guys that win the superbowl going up in ratings, etc
- history on staff member card
- hiring/firing in season

[QuikSand]

Well, we have had a number of discussions about what might be a nice addition here or there to the game, but that can only come from the developer.

I am trying to focus right now on what we, the MP community, might be able to effect with the game as it sits that could make the league experience more rewarding.


In my judgment, the rewards for profitability and the penalties for poor financials are pretty trivial. You end up with a limit on staff salaries, and a theoretical limit in your bonus offerings for players -- I think that's it. There is very, very little reason to actively decide to skimp on staff hiring as a legitimate strategy in this game... so therefore pretty much every MP team who is paying attention offers a max salary to the guys they want, simple. It makes the whole process basically devoid of meaningful intrigue.

What I'm shooting for here is a conceptual way to make "going cheap on staff" a meaningful strategy. If a cheap staff allows you to spend 5% or 10% more on your players than a team who goes all-out on staff, then that might be enough to make a real difference. (Setting aside general issues under the cap, I realize this clouds the whole thing right at the moment)

[OldSchool]

so therefore pretty much every MP team who is paying attention offers a max salary to the guys they want, simple. It makes the whole process basically devoid of meaningful intrigue.


Given the amount of variance in the max each owner can offer, I see plenty of coaches getting snapped away because their owner can't compete with what more financially successful owners can offer. This seems to serve the same purpose as the cap you're proposing but I'm probably missing something.

[st.cronin]

What about making staff ratings COMPLETELY invisible? So a certain defensive coordinator was with Team A when they had the best defense in the league... but how much of that was his doing, really?

[Ben E Lou]

Well, we have had a number of discussions about what might be a nice addition here or there to the game, but that can only come from the developer.

I am trying to focus right now on what we, the MP community, might be able to effect with the game as it sits that could make the league experience more rewarding.

What about making staff ratings COMPLETELY invisible? So a certain defensive coordinator was with Team A when they had the best defense in the league... but how much of that was his doing, really?

*shurg*

[MalcPow]

I like the idea a lot. Just to move the conversation forward a bit... Would something like a 2nd round pick penalty if a team didn't have the necessary cap room in week 1 make sense? I'm just throwing it out there as a point to work from. I think a 2nd rounder gives the rule some teeth, and I think enforcing the rule at the beginning of the regular season accomplishes the goal of limiting a team's ability to spend on quality players while still allowing for some flexibility when things start hitting the fan with injuries and the like.

[QuikSand]

Well, there are different ways to go with something like this.

#1 is a cap, period. Don't spend above X, however you calculate it. Then, the only strategy it allows is how to best spend under the cap. That isn't awful, but it doesn't prove to be all that interesting, I don't think. (I've played under such rules, nobody got a major kick out of it) I think MaclPow's suggestion above is getting basically at this -- here's a cap, that's the limit, and you pay a penalty (like a forfeited draft pick) if you exceed it.


#2 is a soft cap, after which you are obliged to pay for excess staff spending out of something that actually matters -- your player salary cap. I don't mean that this would be the penalty involved -- I would want it to be a trade-off that a team would take into consideration, and maybe willingly decide to do, or maybe not. What I want here is for this to be something that *we* get to think about, with real consequences, and that *we* would be able to define what's most important for our team. That's what I'm trying to get at with my idea above.

[QuikSand]

Given the amount of variance in the max each owner can offer, I see plenty of coaches getting snapped away because their owner can't compete with what more financially successful owners can offer. This seems to serve the same purpose as the cap you're proposing but I'm probably missing something.

What i am proposing is rather than simply have the profitable teams get to make the fattest offers, you set up a system where *anyone* can make a fat offer, but it would come with a meaningful consequence. To me, that's what is missing from the current game. I tend to run moneymaking teams, and i can offer a monster deal to a new coach. And why the hell shouldn't I do so? It's not like that money filters back to anything else meaningful in the game as it is.

This whole idea is to propose a meaningful trade-off for that money. If you spend more on your scout.coaches, then you will have less for something else that you actually value - players. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain this.

[MalcPow]

#2 is a soft cap, after which you are obliged to pay for excess staff spending out of something that actually matters -- your player salary cap. I don't mean that this would be the penalty involved -- I would want it to be a trade-off that a team would take into consideration, and maybe willingly decide to do, or maybe not. What I want here is for this to be something that *we* get to think about, with real consequences, and that *we* would be able to define what's most important for our team. That's what I'm trying to get at with my idea above.

I was thinking more along the lines of #2, but I can see how it reads. I guess I was trying to figure out what happens if an owner hasn't left enough cap room to accomodate his staff spillover. There should be a strong enough penalty that people are paying attention, and the "accounting date" for making sure everyone is in compliance should be one that is actually limiting in the way we want it to be while still allowing a team to sign scrubs due to injuries during the season without losing a 2nd rounder or something.

[gstelmack]

My issue with this is that it makes financials even less of a factor. Right now there is a reward for running a profitable team and a penalty for losing money, and it's in the offers you can make to staff.

I also do find strategy in it: I have my current coach in WOOF because I went after a second-tier young guy instead of a first-tier guy that I didn't think I could land, and was able to offer him enough that he signed immediately.

I just don't see any measurable improvements happening without changes to the game.

[QuikSand]

My issue with this is that it makes financials even less of a factor.

Well, I guess i see your point... but the profitable teams would *still* have the luxury of the highest maximum bids, it's just that they'd at least have to think it over as a strategic element to the game.

I just don't see any measurable improvements happening without changes to the game.

However, judging by this embarrassing attempt at a discussion on the topic, I'm siding with you here.

[gstelmack]

Well, I guess i see your point... but the profitable teams would *still* have the luxury of the highest maximum bids, it's just that they'd at least have to think it over as a strategic element to the game.

My problem is you are now going to penalize teams for taking advantage of good financial decisions, which means there is less incentive to do so than the little there already is.

[QuikSand]

My problem is you are now going to penalize teams for taking advantage of good financial decisions, which means there is less incentive to do so than the little there already is.

I guess I agree, but what exactly are the good financial decision we're talking about here? Basically it's winning games. I don't really feel that rewarding teams for doing a better job throwing darts at ticket prices is a rewarding gaming experience, all told. (And this is from a GM who tends to crush my opposition in financial terms, this isn't sour grapes) I just don't think that there is *anything* terribly rewarding in the game's financial system worth protecting... and I'd be perfectly willing to completely sacrifice it (which I don't think my proposal even does) to actually add something of consequence to the game itself.

So, you're right. It's even true, that one of my money-factory MP teams just lost a head coach, and got rewarded by being able to go get the best head coach in the available field ahead of anyone else who wanted him. Of course, in the system I'm proposing, my team would still have had the same chance to do so, it's just that we would have had to think about whether it made sense to pay maxsal to that guy, rather than just doing it blindly. To me, if we're going to spend three real days investing in this staff hiring process, it might at least be worth thinking about. *shurg*

I do see your point, though, about the bit of strategy that does exist right now when you don't have your pick of the litter, and have to decide whether to fight for the #1 or #2 guy ot just try to go after the #6 guy. That's the best we've got... I'm just fishing around for something that seems to me to be more satisfying. I'd like for every team to have some nuanced decision-making here.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Here's 2 quick and easy methods.

All teams that no longer have a certain staff member get to pick new guys according to their upcoming draft position. So, worst team gets dibs on first pick of staff member, and so on. You have to sign guy at maximum amount. Or you could eliminate the requirement that you have to have a vacancy at that spot and just let the crappy teams upgrade each year if they want. This is just more of a parity thing and doesn't necessarily reward any good decisions or strategy.

Or to bring in the salary cap issue, and more strategy, but to make it easy to track, you could work it so that team with the most cap room picks first instead. One good result would be that you would see teams stop offering 10 million dollar contracts to serviceable vets just because they have cap room. Also, to make it fair, you could base the cap room calculation at the end of the regular season the year before. Salary dumping would be thwarted with the new contract system where contracts are paid with each game which prevents recouping salary cap for game played after guys are cut.

The second method would be super easy and add a little more nuance and strategy to the MP game.

[Uncle Chop Chop]

You should be able to extend staff contracts like you extend players contracts. Obviously finances would come into the equation but you should still be able to have a crack at your own staff member first if you want to keep them. I think that's something that needs to be explored.

[QuikSand]

You should be able to extend staff contracts like you extend players contracts. Obviously finances would come into the equation but you should still be able to have a crack at your own staff member first if you want to keep them. I think that's something that needs to be explored.

Well, again this diverges into something that might be nice for the developer to put into the game, but not something we can effect directly ourselves. I suspect some leagues play with "hands off" rules (and some owners seem to assume they exist even without such rules in place) but overall, this is an in-game item, and my goal with this thread (my hopes have since been abandoned, I confess) was to have some productive discussion about things that might make it more interesting given the game that we currently have.

[Ben E Lou]

I suspect some leagues play with "hands off" rules (and some owners seem to assume they exist even without such rules in place) but overall, this is an in-game item, and my goal with this thread (my hopes have since been abandoned, I confess) was to have some productive discussion about things that might make it more interesting given the game that we currently have.Well, your problem is that you didn't say it clearly or often enough, I guess. *shurg*


So, given that we can't change the roles or the complexity of staff hiring in FOF, what could we actually do in a MP league to make this part of the game more interesting?

Well, we have had a number of discussions about what might be a nice addition here or there to the game, but that can only come from the developer.

I am trying to focus right now on what we, the MP community, might be able to effect with the game as it sits that could make the league experience more rewarding.

Well, again this diverges into something that might be nice for the developer to put into the game, but not something we can effect directly ourselves.

[Uncle Chop Chop]

[quote=QuikSand;1649830]
Well, again this diverges into something that might be nice for the developer to put into the game, but not something we can effect directly ourselves.
[quote]

Not exactly. If teams signalled their intent to resign a coach before staff hiring then this would allow only them to make offers. If you can't afford to resign then bad luck and you can't offer to anybody else in first stage if you intend to resign your coach. All you'd have to do is keep a list in the forum of coaches that are untouchable for the first stage. Just a thought...

[Noop]

The staff hiring phase is just not fun. Do coaches develop? Why can't my head coach influence the development of my quarterback if he has an offensive background? I like this game but it is just to rigid for me...